Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-04-08
FRIDAY. APRIL 8, 1887.
Indre Bonds Decisions.

Judge BoND's refusal to grant an IN
junction restraining the Indemnifying
Board from performing the duties re-
auired OF them by law was the only
decision that he could have properly
rendered in the case The Judge was
not to be caught in that trap. If he
had granted the injunction, and
The members of the Board had
treated il with contempt, as it
was pretty generally supposed they
would, and he had committed
them TO iail, he would have found him.
self in pretty pickle" Would he
have appointed a receiver for the CON-
monwealth? Or would he have APP
pointed nm Attorney General, Secre-
tary of the Commonwealth, an Auditor
of Public Accounts, Second Auditor,
and Treasurer And would all these
have been officers of Federal court
and officers of the Commonwealth at
one and the same time I? We are
anxious to have the State debt settled
at as early day as possible and are
forthis reason glad that Judge BOND has
not, by granting an injunction unlaw
fully, made it still more difficult to eff
feet such settlement. Otherwise, we
should have been rather pleased had he
granted an injunction which would have
called down upon him the censures OF
the people of tho whole United States.
1t would have been a spectacle to at
tract the eyes OF the world. BOND
issuing orders TO commit to Jail
all the departmental officers of this
old Commonwealth But he did not
do II. Let us hope that his decision
will assist the States creditors in coming
to correct conclusion as to the extent
OF the powers OF the court upon which
they have so long relied as their main
stay in their fight with the Common
wealth. Certainly the people would
have been in no humor to treat with
the bondholders had Virginia been sub
jected through her officers to the con-
tumely to which BOND was expected to
expose her.
Judge BoSD's opinion in the habeaS-
corpus case Of RoYALL proves entirely
too much. If he lays down the right
doctrine. every one of the grand jury
men who were sued by Mr.. RoYALL has
the right to bring O suit for damages
against Mr.. royal. For, quoting
Judge BONDS words, we have to say
that among the few rights and priv
leges as yet judicially ascertained which
belong to q person as citizen Of the
United States one is the right to plead
and be impleaded in its courts. From
the earliest dawn of the law, and from
the first establishment OF courts of JUS
tice in communities worthy to be called
civilized, the right of the citizens
to be heard in them for the re-
dress of wrong has never been ques-
toned. Certainly no one in this coun-
try. from the President of the United
States 10 the most obscure citizen, is
exempt from answering the complaint
of one who alleges he has been
wronged 1t is not to the purpose to
say that the plaintiff must fail in his
suit. Whether he have good case or
a. bad one he is entitled TO have it
judicially determined. To open the
court is the beginning of liberty. 1t
is the first of tyranny to close them.
However that may be, it is not in the
power Of Judge BOND to close the
doors OF the courts Of Virginia to any
person complaining that he suffers a
wrong in violation of the Constitution
of the United States.
So that, if Judge BONDS dictum is
Good law, Messrs. THOMAS PoTrs,
JAMES II. HARDGRoyE, HENRY BRUES-
mo, JOSEPH G. DIcKERsoN, john Ii.
SMITH, and WyNDHAM r. MEREDITH
have, each and every one of them, the
right TO sue Mr.. RoYALt for the wrong
which he has done them. And it does
not matter whether there has really
been wrong done them or not; for,
says Judge BOND, if they imagine they
have been wronged by Mr.. RoYAIL,
they have the right TO have the ques-
ton judicially determined. event though
they take nothing by their false
clamor. We suspect that MIR. RoYALL
would have more than he bsrgained
for il each of the grand jurors whom
he has sued were 10 she him for dam
ages, and that he would ask Judge
BoNp TO decide that he could not be
sued for exercising constitutional
right, Notwithstanding his decision IN
the RoyALL hobeas-corpus case that q
grand juror could be sued not for
exercising right but for merely per-
forming sworn duty under the direc-
tons Of a Judge OF the Commonwealth
OF Virginia. Surely these grand jurors
have better right to sue than Mr.
RorALL had.
--------------.-----
An Earthquake in Rhode Island.